DOCSLIB.ORG

Distributed Programming and Remote Procedure Calls (RPC)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Distributed Programming and Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) Distributed Programming and Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) George Porter CSE 124 February 17, 2015 Announcements ■ Project 2 checkpoint – use submission site or email if having difficulties. ■ Project 1 recap ■ SQL vs. Hadoop ■ Graphing tools • Log scale ■ Change in schedule: • Thursday will be an in-class tutorial on RPC with Facebook’s Thrift framework Project 1 recap Linear scale Logarithmic scale Part 1: RPC Concepts Remote Procedure Call (RPC) ■ Distributed programming is challenging • Need common primitives/abstraction to hide complexity • E.g., file system abstraction to hide block layout, process abstraction for scheduling/fault isolation ■ In early 1980’s, researchers at PARC noticed most distributed programming took form of remote procedure call ■ Popular variant: Remote Method Invocation (RMI) • Obtain handle to remote object, invoke method on object • Transparency goal: remote object appear as if local object RPC Example Local computing Remote/RPC computing X = 3 * 10; server = connectToServer(S); print(X) Try: > 30 X = server.mult(3,10); print(X) Except e: print “Error!” > 30 or > Error! Why RPC? ■ Offload computation from devices to servers • Phones, raspberry pi, sensors, Nest thermostat, … ■ Hide the implementation of functionality • Proprietary algorithms ■ Functions that just can’t run locally Why RPC? ■ Functions that just can’t run locally • tags = Facebook.MatchFacesInPhoto(photo) • Print tags > [“Chuck Thacker”, “Leslie Lamport”] What makes RPC hard? ■ Network vs. computer backplane • Message loss, message reorder, … ■ Heterogeneity • Client and Server might have different: OS versions Languages Endian-ness Hardware architectures … Leslie Lamport “A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you didn't even know existed can render your own computer unusable” RPC Components ■ End-to-end RPC protocol • Defines messages, message exchange behavior, … ■ Programming language support • Turn “local” functions/methods into RPC • Package up arguments to the method/function, unpackage on the server, … • Called a “stub compiler” • Process of packaging and unpackaging arguments is called “Marshalling” and “Unmarshalling” High-level overview Overview ■ RPC Protocol itself ■ Stub compiler / mashalling ■ RPC Frameworks Remote Procedure Call Issues ■ Underlying protocol • UDP vs. TCP • Advantages/Disadvantages? ■ Semantics • What happens on network/host failure? • No fate sharing (compared to local machine case) ■ Transparency • Hide network communication/failure from programmer • With language support, can make remote procedure call “look just like” local procedure call Identifying remote function/methods ■ Namespace vs flat • Issues w.r.t. flat: how to assign? ■ Matching requests with responses • Can’t just rely on TCP Why?? • What if the client or server fail during execution? ■ Main idea: • Message ID • Client blocked until response returned w/ Message ID When things go wrong ■ Let’s assume client ■ Server gets first and server use TCP request(0), executes it, send response ■ Client issues request(0) ■ Server get the second request, thinks it is a ■ Client fails, reboots duplicate, and so ■ Client issues unrelated ACKs it but doesn’t request(0) execute ■ Client never gets a response to either request. Boot ID + Message ID ■ Idea is to keep non-volatile state that is updated every time the machine boots ■ Incremented during the boot-up process ■ Each request/response is uniquely identified by a (bootID,MessageID) pair Client/Server Interaction Client Server ● Client sends request SendReq() RecvReq() i Client waits for response (blocking) RecvResp() ● Server wakes up SendResp() h Computes, sends response h Response wakes up client ● Server structure? h Process, thread, FIFO Reliable RPC (explicit acknowledgement) Reliable RPC (implicit acknowledgement) What about failures? ■ Different options: 1. Server can keep track of the (BootId,MessageId) and ignore any duplicate requests 2. Server doesn’t keep state—might execute duplicate requests ■ What are advantages/disadvantages? RPC Semantics Delivery Guarantees RPC Call Retry Duplicate Retransmit Semantics Request Filtering Response No NA NA Maybe Re-execute Yes No At-least once Procedure Retransmit Yes Yes At-most once reply Remote Procedure Call Issues ■ Idempotent operations • Can you re-execute operations without harmful side effects • Idempotency means that executing the same procedure does not have visible side effects ■ Timeout value • How long to wait before re-transmitting request? Protocol-to-Protocol Interface ■ Send/Receive semantics • Synchronous vs. Asynchronous ■ Process Model • Single process vs. multiple process • Avoid context switches ■ Buffer Model • Avoid data copies Part 2: RPC Implementations Request / Response Flow Name Server RPC 3. Request RPC Client Stub 4. Response Stub Server ■ Client stub indicates which procedure should run at server • Marshals arguments ■ Server stub unmarshals arguments • Big switch statement to determine local procedure to run RPC Mechanics ■ Client issues request by calling stub procedure • Stubs can be automatically generated with compiler support ■ Stub procedure marshals arguments, transmits requests, blocks waiting for response • RPC layer deals with network issues (e.g., TCP vs. UDP) ■ Server stub • Unmarshals arguments • Determines correct local procedure to invoke, computes • Marshals results, transmits to client • Can also be automatically generated with language support RPC Binding ■ Binding • Servers register the service they provide to a name server • Clients lookup services they need from server • Bind to server for a particular set of remote procedures • Operation informs RPC layer which machine to transmit requests to ■ How to locate the RPC name service? Presentation Formatting ■ Marshalling (encoding) application data into messages ■ Unmarshalling (decoding) Application Application messages into application data data data Presentation Presentation encoding decoding ■ Data types to consider: … • integers Message Message Message • floats • strings Types of data we do not consider • arrays images • structs video multimedia documents Difficulties ■ Representation of base types • Floating point: IEEE 754 versus non-standard • Integer: big-endian versus little-endian (e.g., 34,677,374) (2) (17) (34) (126) Big-endian 00000010 00 0 1 0 0 0 1 00 1 0 0 0 1 0 01 1 1 1 1 1 0 (126) (34) (17) (2) Little-endian 01 1 1 1 1 1 0 00 1 0 0 0 1 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 1 00 0 0 0 0 1 0 High Low address address ■ Compiler layout of structures Taxonomy ■ Data types • Base types (e.g., ints, floats); must convert • Flat types (e.g., structures, arrays); must pack • Complex types (e.g., pointers); must linearize Application data structure Marshaller RPC Interface vs. Implementation ■ RPC Interface: • High-level procedure invocation with arguments, return type • Asynchronous, Synchronous, ‘void’, Pipelined... ■ RPC Implementation: • SunRPC • Java RMI • XML RPC • Apache Thrift • Google Protocol Buffers* • Apache Avro SunRPC 0 31 0 31 ■ Originally implemented for popular NFS (network file service) XID XID ■ XID (transaction id) uniquely MsgType = CALL MsgType = REPLY identifies request RPCVersion = 2 Status = ACCEPTED ■ Server does not remember last XID it Program Data serviced Version • Problem if client retransmits request while reply is in transit Procedure • Provides at-least once semantics Credentials (variable) Verifier (variable) Data XML-RPC ■ XML is a standard for describing structured documents • Uses tags to define structure: <tag> … </tag> demarcates an element Tags have no predefined semantics … … except when document refers to a specific namespace • Elements can have attributes, which are encoded as name-value pairs A well-formed XML document corresponds to an element tree ■ <?xml version="1.0"?> <methodCall> <methodName>SumAndDifference</methodName> <params> <param><value><i4>40</i4></value></param> <param><value><i4>10</i4></value></param> </params> </methodCall> (thanks to Vijay Karamcheti) XML-RPC Wire Format ■ Scalar values • Represented by a <value><type> … </type></value> block ■ Integer • <i4>12</i4> ■ Boolean • <boolean>0</boolean> ■ String • <string>Hello world</string> ■ Double • <double>11.4368</double> ■ Also Base64 (binary), DateTime, etc. XML-RPC Wire Format (struct) ■ Structures • Represented as a set of <member>s • Each member contains a <name> and a <value> ■ <struct> <member> <name>lowerBound</name> <value><i4>18</i4></value> </member> <member> <name>upperBound</name> <value><i4>139</i4></value> </member> </struct> XML-RPC Wire Format (Arrays) ■ Arrays • A single <data> element, which • contains any number of <value> elements ■ <array> <data> <value><i4>12</i4></value> <value><string>Egypt</string></value> <value><boolean>0</boolean></value> <value><i4>-31</i4></value> </data> </array> XML-RPC Request ■ HTTP POST message • URI interpreted in an implementation-specific fashion • Method name passed to the server program ■ POST /RPC2 HTTP/1.1 Content-Type: text/xml User-Agent: XML-RPC.NET Content-Length: 278 Expect: 100-continue Connection: Keep-Alive Host: localhost:8080 <?xml version="1.0"?> <methodCall> <methodName>SumAndDifference</methodName> <params> <param><value><i4>40</i4></value></param> <param><value><i4>10</i4></value></param> </params> </methodCall> XML-RPC Response ■ HTTP Response • Lower-level error returned as an HTTP error code • Application-level errors returned as a <fault> element (next slide) ■ HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:52:34 GMT Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Remote Procedure Calls
    Lectures on distributed systems Remote Procedure Calls Paul Krzyzanowski Introduction, or what’s wrong with sockets? OCKETS are a fundamental part of client-server networking. They provide a S relatively easy mechanism for a program to establish a connection to another program, either on a remote or local machine and send messages back and forth (we can even use read and write system calls). This interface, however, forces us to design our distributed applications using a read/write (input/output) inter- face which is not how we generally design non-distributed applications. In design- ing centralized applications, the procedure call is usually the standard interface model. If we want to make distributed computing look like centralized comput- ing, input-output-based communications is not the way to accomplish this. In 1984, Birrell and Nelson devised a mechanism to allow programs to call procedures on other machines. A process on machine A can call a procedure on machine B. The process on A is suspended and execution continues on B. When B returns, the return value is passed to A and A continues execution. This mechanism is called the Remote Procedure Call (RPC). To the programmer, the goal is that it should appear as if a normal procedure call is taking place. Obvi- ously, a remote procedure call is different from a local one in the underlying implementation. Steps in a remote procedure call Clearly, there is no architectural support for making remote procedure calls. A local procedure call generally involves placing the calling parameters on the stack and executing some form of a call instruction to the address of the proce- dure.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Objects in C
    Rochester Institute of Technology RIT Scholar Works Theses 2006 Distributed Objects in C# Xiaoyun Xie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses Recommended Citation Xie, Xiaoyun, "Distributed Objects in C#" (2006). Thesis. Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from This Master's Project is brought to you for free and open access by RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Rochester Institute of Technology Department of Computer Science Master of Science Project Distributed Objects System in C# Submitted By: Xie, Xiaoyun (Sherry) Date: February 2004 Chairman: Dr. Axel T. Schreiner Reader: Dr. Hans-Peter Bischof Observer: Dr. James Heliotis 2 ABSTRACT Today more and more programs run over a collection of autonomous computers linked by a network and are designed to produce an integrated computing facility. Java Distributed Objects (JDO) proposed by Dr. Axel T. Schreiner [1] builds an infrastructure which allows distributed program components to communicate over a network in a transparent, reliable, efficient, and generic way. JDO was originally intended as a teaching device to assess design parameters for distributed objects. This project focuses on porting JDO, which is implemented in Java on Sun’s JDK, to C# on Microsoft’s .NET. On one hand, it builds an infrastructure in C# that simplifies the construction of distributed programs by hiding the distributed nature of remote objects. On the other hand, it generates insights into the differences between two platforms, namely, Java on Sun and C# on .NET, in the distributed objects area.
    [Show full text]
  • More Efficient Serialization and RMI for Java
    To appear in: Concurrency: Practice & Experience, Vol. 11, 1999. More Ecient Serialization and RMI for Java Michael Philippsen, Bernhard Haumacher, and Christian Nester Computer Science Department, University of Karlsruhe Am Fasanengarten 5, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany [phlippjhaumajnester]@ira.u ka.de http://wwwipd.ira.uka.de/JavaPa rty/ Abstract. In current Java implementations, Remote Metho d Invo ca- tion RMI is to o slow, esp ecially for high p erformance computing. RMI is designed for wide-area and high-latency networks, it is based on a slow ob ject serialization, and it do es not supp ort high-p erformance commu- nication networks. The pap er demonstrates that a much faster drop-in RMI and an ecient drop-in serialization can b e designed and implemented completely in Java without any native co de. Moreover, the re-designed RMI supp orts non- TCP/IP communication networks, even with heterogeneous transp ort proto cols. We demonstrate that for high p erformance computing some of the ocial serialization's generality can and should b e traded for sp eed. Asaby-pro duct, a b enchmark collection for RMI is presented. On PCs connected through Ethernet, the b etter serialization and the improved RMI save a median of 45 maximum of 71 of the runtime for some set of arguments. On our Myrinet-based ParaStation network a cluster of DEC Alphas wesave a median of 85 maximum of 96, compared to standard RMI, standard serialization, and Fast Ethernet; a remote metho d invo cation runs as fast as 80 s round trip time, compared to ab out 1.5 ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Procedure Call (RPC)
    Remote Procedure Call (RPC) RPC – RMI - Web Services 1 Complexity of the distributed applications . The programming of distributed applications is difficult. In addition to the usual tasks, programmers who build clients and servers must deal with the complex issues of communication. Although many of the needed functions are supplied by a standard API such as the socket interface, the socket calls require the programmer to specify many low level details as names ,addresses,protocols and ports. Moreover, asinchronous communications models are complex to implement. Distributed implementations tend to use the same standard API (e.g.,the socket interface). As a consequence most of the detailed code found in one program is replicated in others RPC – RMI - Web Services 2 . For example, all client programs that use a connection oriented transport must create a socket, specify the server’s endpoint address, open a connection to the server, send requests,receive responses and close the connection when interaction is complete. Tools (software that generates all or part of a computer program) have been created to construct clients and servers. Tools cannot eliminate all programming: a programmer must supply the code that perform the computation for the particular service. However, a tool can handle the communication details. As a result the code contains fever bugs. RPC – RMI - Web Services 3 . RPC = Remote Procedure Call . The basic model has been proposed by Birrell e Nelson in 1984. The essence of this technique is to allow programs on different machines to interact using simple procedure call/return semantics, just as if the two programs were in the same computer .
    [Show full text]
  • Inter Process Communication with Message Passing
    Operating systems (vimia219) Collaboration of Tasks Tamás Kovácsházy, PhD 13rd Topic Inter Process Communication with Message Passing Budapest University of Technology and Economics Department of Measurement and Information Systems Looking back, communication solutions . Using shared memory(RAM or PRAM model): o Among threads running in the context of a process (shared memory of the process) . Messages: o No shared memory • Among processes running inside an operating system • Distributed system (network communication) o Microkernel based operating system . Inter Process Communication, IPC © BME-MIT 2014, All Rights Reserved 2. lap Messages . Different from the same word used in computer networks o We consider a more generic notion of message . Message passing . For example: o System call o TCP/IP connection (TCP) or message (UDP) for internal (localhost) or external communication (among machines) . Most cases they are implemented as OS API function/method calls resulting a system call . The operating system implements them by its services © BME-MIT 2014, All Rights Reserved 3. lap Some notes . Semaphore, Critical section object, and Mutex are also implemented by the OS and handled by system calls o Threads running in the context of a process communicate using shared memory (fast, low resource utilization) o Mutual exclusion and synchronization are solved by messages (using system calls). o It has some overhead: • Experiments: Lockless programming, transactional memory etc. • There is no good solution, but we can pick a better one than
    [Show full text]
  • CSE 486/586 Distributed Systems Remote Procedure Call Recall?
    Recall? App CSE 486/586 Distributed Systems Remote Procedure Call Socket API TCP UDP OS Steve Ko IP Computer Sciences and Engineering University at Buffalo Device Drivers Network Interface CSE 486/586 CSE 486/586 2 Socket API What’s Wrong with Socket API? Server • Low-level read/write socket() • Communication oriented • Same sequence of calls, repeated many times bind() • Etc, etc… Client listen() • Not programmer friendly socket() establish accept() connection connect() block send request write() read() process request send response write() read() CSE 486/586 3 CSE 486/586 4 Another Abstraction RPC • RPC (Remote Procedure Call) • Client • Server – Goal: it should appear that the programmer is calling a local function int main (…) … – Mechanism to enable function calls between different { processes – First proposed in the 80’s … void rpc_call(…) { • Examples rpc_call(…); … – Sun RPC … } – Java RMI – CORBA } • Other examples that borrow the idea … – XML-RPC – Android Bound Services with AIDL – Google Protocol Buffers CSE 486/586 5 CSE 486/586 6 C 1 Local Procedure Call Remote Procedure Call • E.g., x = local_call(“str”); • Give an illusion of doing a local call • The compiler generates coDe to transfer necessary • Closer to the programmers things to local_call – Language-level construct, not OS-level support – Push the parameters to the stack • What are some of the challenges? – Call local_call – How do you know that there are remote calls available? • The compiler also generates coDe to execute the – How do you pass the parameters? local call. – How do you find the correct server process? – Assigns registers – How do you get the return value? – AdJust stack pointers – Saves the return value – Calls the return instruction CSE 486/586 7 CSE 486/586 8 Stub, Marshalling, & Unmarshalling RPC Process • Stub functions: local interface to make it appear that the call is local.
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Procedure Call Protocol
    Remote Procedure Call Protocol Batholomew wish his killdees detains inaccessibly or swaggeringly after Morris rival and screw sartorially, scotopic and lipped. Juanita synthesizes her illuminist ruddily, detoxicant and odious. Toneless Rusty recommence irruptively. Access control to a procedure call machine boundaries has been performed by the major version number represented by procedure call protocol The client can custom this proxy or façade as though we actually implemented these interfaces, although one actually delegates the invocation to the implementation. In dust, an RPC server uses a standard HTTP server on several specific endpoint. The server side is simpler than the client. They provide remote objects to an email below illustrates one final piece to remote procedure call protocol does in a call is allowed to you can infer that can use. You should charge a copy of this. There now be an led even though the offspring was accepted. Determine those data types of fit procedure calling arguments and the result argument. TODO: we pull review the class names and whatnot in color here. IP address of the server that has responded. Because of transport independence, the RPC protocol does he attach specific semantics to three remote procedures or their execution requirements. IP where our office site is hosted. That gross, can a malicious host yeah a message an retransmit it at a hideous time? Rpc calls do a server, or rejected due to do this does a remote procedure parameters as a given server in this strategy for email below illustrates an office with call protocol stacks as this.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fully In-Browser Client and Server Web Application Debug and Test Environment
    LIBERATED: A fully in-browser client and server web application debug and test environment Derrell Lipman University of Massachusetts Lowell Abstract ging and testing the entire application, both frontend and backend, within the browser environment. Once the ap- Traditional web-based client-server application devel- plication is tested, the backend portion of the code can opment has been accomplished in two separate pieces: be moved to the production server where it operates with the frontend portion which runs on the client machine has little, if any, additional debugging. been written in HTML and JavaScript; and the backend portion which runs on the server machine has been writ- 1.1 Typical web application development ten in PHP, ASP.net, or some other “server-side” lan- guage which typically interfaces to a database. The skill There are many skill sets required to implement a sets required for these two pieces are different. modern web application. On the client side, initially, the In this paper, I demonstrate a new methodology user interface must be defined. A visual designer, in con- for web-based client-server application development, in junction with a human-factors engineer, may determine which a simulated server is built into the browser envi- what features should appear in the interface, and how to ronment to run the backend code. This allows the fron- best organize them for ease of use and an attractive de- tend to issue requests to the backend, and the developer sign. to step, using a debugger, directly from frontend code into The language used to write the user interface code is backend code, and to debug and test both the frontend most typically JavaScript [6].
    [Show full text]
  • Ajax Smackdown Dojo Versus YUI
    Ajax Smackdown Dojo versus YUI Struts University Series Ajax Smackdown What is Ajax? Why is it popular now? What can it do for my applications? How do we write Ajax applications? Which library is the best fit for me? What is Ajax? standards-based presentation using XHTML and CSS; dynamic display and interaction using the Document Object Model; data interchange and manipulation using XML and XSLT; asynchronous data retrieval using XMLHttpRequest; and JavaScript binding everything together. How did Ajax Start? Outlook Web Access for Exchange 2000 DHTML version XMLHTTP ActiveX Ships with IE5 Discovered by OddPost, et al XMLHttpRequest (XHR) is now a W3C working draft War: What is it good for? Operating-system independence Microsoft threatened Rapid IE releases "Bugs were pouring into the web at a phenomenal rate" By 2000, Netscape is crushed. Can we give peace a chance? Browser innovation stabilizes AOL disbands Netscape in 2003 MS transfers IE developers to Avalon New computer, new browser February 2005: IE6 83% Mainstream supports XHR MS Way and W3C Way ✗ Ajax AC ✗ Dojo Toolkit ✗ Rico Library ✗ Ajax Client Engine ✗ DOM Drag ✗ RSList Library ✗ AJAX Java Server Faces ✗ Echo 2 ✗ SACK Framework ✗ ICEFaces ✗ Sarissa ✗ AJAX JSP Tag Library ✗ IWF ✗ script.aculo.us ✗ Ajax.NET ✗ JAHAH ✗ SWATO Library ✗ AjaxAspects ✗ Java2Script Pacemaker ✗ Taconite ✗ AjaxCaller ✗ JavaScript GameLib ✗ Tacos Library ✗ AJFormFramework ✗ JPSPAN ✗ ThinkCap JX ✗ AMFPHP ✗ JSMX ✗ Tibet Framework ✗ BackBAse ✗ libXmlRequest Library ✗ WebORB ✗ Bindows ✗ MAJAX Library ✗ WidgetServer
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Xml-Rpc, a Simple Xml-Based Rpc Mechanism
    XML-RPC indigoo.com XML-RPC INTRODUCTION TO XML-RPC, A SIMPLE XML-BASED RPC MECHANISM Peter R. Egli INDIGOO.COM 1/11 © Peter R. Egli 2015 Rev. 1.60 XML-RPC indigoo.com Contents 1. What is XML-RPC? 2. XML-RPC architecture 3. XML-RPC protocol 4. XML-RPC server implementation in Java 5. Where to use XML-RPC 2/11 © Peter R. Egli 2015 Rev. 1.60 XML-RPC indigoo.com 1. What is XML-RPC? XML-RPC is a remote procedure call protocol using XML as data format and HTTP as transport protocol. Advantages of XML-RPC: • Simple mechanism to call remote procedures on a machine with a different OS. • XML-RPC is language and platform independent. XML-RPC libraries are available in Java and other languages (e.g. .Net: http://xml-rpc.net/). • XML-RPC is not more than its name implies and thus is very simple and lean (very short specification, see http://xmlrpc.scripting.com/spec.html). Protocols and techniques behind XML-RPC: 1. XML - Formatting of the request and response and the arguments (wire protocol) 2. RPC - Remote call of procedures. 3. HTTP - Transport protocol for the XML („firewall-friendly“). <methodCall> <methodCall> … … XML- </methodCall> </methodCall> XML- RPC HTTP HTTP RPC client server <methodResponse> <methodResponse> … … </methodResponse> </methodResponse> 3/11 © Peter R. Egli 2015 Rev. 1.60 XML-RPC indigoo.com 2. XML-RPC architecture The client application accesses the server through a URL (= location where service resides). The XML-RPC listener receives requests and passes these to the handler (= user defined class servicing the request).
    [Show full text]
  • A Web Interface for 3D Visualization and Interactive Segmentation of Medical Images Hector Jacinto, Razmig Kéchichian, Michel Desvignes, Rémy Prost, Sébastien Valette
    A web interface for 3D visualization and interactive segmentation of medical images Hector Jacinto, Razmig Kéchichian, Michel Desvignes, Rémy Prost, Sébastien Valette To cite this version: Hector Jacinto, Razmig Kéchichian, Michel Desvignes, Rémy Prost, Sébastien Valette. A web in- terface for 3D visualization and interactive segmentation of medical images. 17th International Conference on 3D Web Technology (Web 3D), Aug 2012, Los Angeles, United States. pp.51-58, 10.1145/2338714.2338722. hal-00732335 HAL Id: hal-00732335 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00732335 Submitted on 14 Sep 2012 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. A Web Interface for 3D Visualization and Interactive Segmentation of Medical Images Hector Jacinto∗ Razmig Kechichian´ † Michel Desvignes‡ Remy´ Prost§ Sebastien´ Valette¶ OneFit Medical, SAS CREATIS GIPSA-LAB CREATIS CREATIS CREATIS Figure 1: Our framework enables visualization and processing of large medical images on modest computers. Here, a simple example of lung segmentation is shown. Abstract CR Categories: I.3.2 [Computer Graphics]: Graphic Systems—Remote systems** I.4.6 [Image Processing and We propose a web-accessible image visualization and processing Computer Vision]: Segmentation—Pixel classification; I.3.5 framework well-suited for medical applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Json Remote Procedure Call
    JSONJSON-RPC -RPCindigoo .com JSON REMOTE PROCEDURE CALL OVERVIEW OF JSON-RPC, A VERY SIMPLE AND LIGHTWEIGHT RPC PROTOCOL FOR DISTRIBUTED APPLICATIONS Peter R. Egli INDIGOO.COM1/11 © Peter R. Egli 2015 Rev. 1.60 JSON-RPC indigoo.com Contents 1. What is JSON-RPC? 2. JSON-RPC interactions 3. Transport options for JSON-RPC 4. JSON serialization format 5. JSON-RPC 2.0 examples 6. When to use JSON-RPC 2/11 © Peter R. Egli 2015 Rev. 1.60 JSON-RPC indigoo.com 1. What is JSON-RPC? JSON-RPC is a simple RPC mechanism, similar to XML-RPC. Protocol: Unlike XML-RPC which is a client-server protocol, JSON-RPC is a peer-to-peer protocol. It uses JSON (Javascript Object Notation, RFC4627) as the serialization format and plain TCP streams or HTTP as transport mechanism. JSON message types: JSON-RPC defines 3 message types: Request: Method invokation with arguments encoded in JSON. Response: Reply to method invokation containing the return argument encoded in JSON. Notification: Asynchronous request without response. Specification: JSON-RPC is very simple, i.e. the JSON-RPC specification is very short (ca. 5 pages). See http://json-rpc.org/. 3/11 © Peter R. Egli 2015 Rev. 1.60 JSON-RPC indigoo.com 2. JSON-RPC interactions JSON-RPC defines 2 message exchange patterns that support most of the usual peer2peer interaction schemes. A. Request-Response: The sending JSON peer invokes a method on the remote JSON peer with a JSON request. The remote peer sends back a JSON response message. JSON peer JSON peer Request message: Request (REQ) method Method to be invoked.
    [Show full text]